Kazumasa Arakita et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 13, 2020

13552002 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/552,002 07/18/2012 Kazumasa Arakita 402112US2X 8633
22850 7590 02/13/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
PATEL, SHIVANG I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUMASA ARAKITA, YASUHIRO NOSHI, TATSUO
MAEDA, GO MUKUMOTO, TAKAHIRO YODA, YOSHIAKI YAOI,
and TOMONORI OZAKI

Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 13, 15–18, 20, and 21.2 Claims
App’x. Claims 7–12, 14, and 19 have been cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Specification, filed July 18, 2012 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed June 23, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
December 22, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed
March 22, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Toshiba Medical Corp. as the real
party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

2
We reverse.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
medical image diagnostic device3 including workstation (130) containing
controller (135) for processing three-dimensional (3D) medical images
(“volume data”). Spec. 1:11–13, Figs. 1, 4, 7.
Figures 7–9, reproduced below, are useful for understanding the
claimed invention:

Figure 7 illustrates a controller within workstation (Fig. 4, 130) of image
processing system (Fig. 1). Id. at 21–22.

3 Examples of medical image diagnostic device include X-ray, computed
tomography (CT) device, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and
ultrasonography device. Spec. 1:25–25
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

3

Figure 8 illustrates generated flat image (303, 304, 305) setting arbitrary
coordinate point (302) on a stereoscopic 3D image of subject (301). Id. at
29: 8–10.

As depicted in Figure 8 above, upon receiving at receiving unit (1351)
a stereoscopic 3D image of subject (301) from storage unit (134), flat image
generator (1352) within controller (135) cuts subject (301) along a plane
corresponding to the region of interest to generate flat image (303, 304, 305)
of a cut surface of subject (301) setting arbitrary coordinate point (302), and
displays the generated flat image on general-purpose monitor (1354). Id. at
29:3–24.
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

4

Figure 9 illustrates a generated parallax image displaying a stereoscopic
image on which transparent figure (310) is displayed at a position
corresponding to a previously generated flat image. Id. at 30: 16–25.

As further depicted in Figure 9 above, upon receiving the 3D image,
parallax image generator (1353) within controller (135) generates a parallax
image including a stereoscopic image on which transparent figure (310) is
displayed at a position corresponding to the previously generated flat image,
and displays the generated parallax image on general-purpose monitor
(1354). Id. at 30: 16–25.
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An image processing device, comprising:
processing circuitry having a receiving unit, a flat image
generator, a parallax image generator, and an output unit,
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

5
the receiving unit being configured to receive a setting of
a region of interest on parallax images of a subject that are
displayed stereoscopically,
the flat image generator being configured to generate a
flat image of a cut surface of the subject that is generated by
cutting the subject along a plane corresponding to the region of
interest received by the receiving unit based on volume data of
the subject stored in a predetermined storage device,
the parallax image generator being configured to
generate parallax images for displaying a stereoscopic image
including a transparent plane figure displayed stereoscopically
at a position corresponding to the flat image, wherein the cut
surface of the subject intersecting with the transparent plane
figure is distinguishable from other portions of the transparent
plane figure, based on the volume data of the subject, and
the output unit being configured to output the flat image
generated by the flat image generator and to output, using the
parallax images, the stereoscopic image including the
transparent plane figure displayed stereoscopically at the
position corresponding to the flat image, wherein the cut
surface of the subject intersecting with the transparent plane
figure is distinguishable from other portions of the transparent
plane figure.

Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.4
Name Number Filed Publ’d/Issued
Tsubaki US 7,567,648 B2 June 7, 2005 July 28, 2009
Chono US 2011/0313291 A1 Feb. 2, 2010 Dec. 22, 2011
Hansegard US 2012/0245465 A1 Mar. 25, 2011 Sept. 27, 2012

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

6

IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 13, 15–18, 20, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansegard,
Tsubaki, and Chono. Final Act. 3–30.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Hansegard, Tsubaki, and Chono teaches or suggests “generat[ing]
parallax images for displaying a stereoscopic image including a transparent
plane figure displayed stereoscopically at a position corresponding to the flat
image,” as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 6–7. In particular,
Appellant argues although Hansegard discloses a symbolic representation of
an intersecting plane in a 3D volume, it does not teach displaying the
symbolic representation, much less stereoscopically. Id. at 7 (citing
Hansegard ¶ 40, Fig. 4.) According to Appellant, Hansegard merely
discloses displaying intersecting curves/planes of interest along the
surface/contour of a rendered 3D ultrasound volume as opposed to
displaying transparent plane figures stereoscopically. Id. (citing Hansegard
¶ 40, Fig. 5). Further, Appellant argues that Tsubaki’s disclosure of
converting parallax images for stereoscopic display does not teach a
displayed transparent plane figure included in a stereoscopic image
corresponding to a generated flat image. Id. at 7
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As
an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification
defines “parallax images” as “images that have been shot from a plurality of
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

7
viewpoints and of which parallax angles are different from one another.”
Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 5:3–5). We also note that the Specification further
defines “parallax images” as “images for displaying a stereoscopic image for
a user. . . and are generated by performing volume rendering processing on
volume data.” Id. at 5:5–9. Therefore, consistent with Appellant’s
Specification, we construe “parallax images” as images with different
parallax angles shot from multiple viewpoints, and generated by performing
volume rendering processing on volume data to display stereoscopic images
for a user.
Hansegard discloses processing 3D volume data to display a plurality
of intersecting 2D surfaces corresponding to one or more slice planes that
are visible along the surface of the rendered 3D such that the color,
transparency, and intensity value of the pixels corresponding to the identified
intersection may be changed. Hansegard ¶¶ 26, 30, 31. We do not agree
with the Examiner that Hansegard’s disclosure of processing 3D volume
data display 2D images teaches the disputed imitation. Ans. 3–4. Hansegard
is silent as to whether the generated 2D images have different angles or are
shot from multiple viewpoints. Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner
that Hansegard’s processing of 3D volume data to produce intersecting 2D
graphs teaches the parallax images, as construed above. Id. Rather,
Hansegard teaches generating flat images including a transparent plane.
Hansegard ¶¶ 26, 31.
Further, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reliance on
Tsubaki and Chono does not cure the noted deficiencies in Hansegard. In
particular, Tsubaki discloses an image pickup device processing an electrical
signal to generate rear-projected image data captured by gradually moving a
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

8
radiation source to output parallax image data corresponding to the position
of the radiation source. Tsubaki 5:24–30. Tsubaki further discloses a
stereoscopic image processing unit for converting parallax image data
supplied from the radiation pickup unit into data appropriate for stereoscopic
image. Id. at 5:33–38. Although Tsubaki discloses generating parallax
images, it is not for displaying “a stereoscopic image with a transparent
plane figure displayed stereoscopically at a position corresponding to a flat
image,” as required by the disputed limitation. Additionally, Chono
discloses a 2D section setting section that reads addresses of 3D images
from a storage unit and displays a measurement point in the displayed 3D
image. Chono ¶ 36.
At best, the proposed combination of Hansegard, Tsubaki, and Chono
would result in an image processing system that processes received 3D
volume data to generate a parallax image, as well as to generate a flat image
including transparent plane displayed at a particular measurement point.
However, the proposed combination would still fall short of teaching the
claimed parallax image including the transparent plane figure displayed
stereoscopically at a position corresponding to a flat image, as required by
the disputed limitation. Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claims 1, 16, and 17, each of which includes the argued
limitation. Likewise, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2–6, 13, 15,
18, 20, and 21, which also recite the disputed limitation.
Appeal 2018-006349
Application 13/552,002

9

VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–6, 13,
15–18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 13, 15–18,
20, 21 103
Hansegard, Tsubaki,
Chono
1–6, 13,
15–18, 20,
21

REVERSED